House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill

[Streck-Fu]

Art. IV refers to laws passed within the scope of the Constitution.

A review of James Madison's presentation of the proposed Bill of Rights as well writings by Thomas Jefferson and others will support this.

I am posting from the phone but will add references after I get home.

Ultimately, if the federal government was primary, why even write the 9th and 10th amendments as they would have no standing?

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by AMP

The great state of Indiana, $125.00 = lifetime concealed carry permit. My son just applied for his.

The wife and I got ours....there is a movement to stop offering it as they lose a lot of money from renewals.

[Buffalobob]

The bill would have been better with the Broun provisions incorporated.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Ultimately, if the federal government was primary, why even write the [ninth] and [tenth] amendments as they would have no standing?

Post number 30 answers this question.

Also, I do not think that quoting Jefferson and Madison will strengthen your point. The reasons why options are offered are not always the same reasons why stakeholders accept those options.

For example, if certain members of this BB who like hotwings recommended a PS.COM meet-up at a Hooters, it would not necessarily follow that everyone who went likes hot wings.

(Of course, this is a counterfacual example. Everyone who goes to Hooters only does so for the wings.)

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by cat in the hat

sorry, false. see amendments 9 and 10 again. Other than the powers allowed to the Federal Government, states are free to govern themselves. For example, gambling in Nevada or non smoking laws in California.

Actually, this is not correct. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to make applicable the Bill of Rights to the states.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...law/incorp.htm

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

(Of course, this is a counterfacual example. Everyone who goes to Hooters only does so for the wings.)

Is there any other reason to go?

[Streck-Fu]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Also, I do not think that quoting Jefferson and Madison will strengthen your point. The reasons why options are offered are not always the same reasons why stakeholders accept those options.

Spoken like a lawyer or someone trying to be a lawyer....

Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle.
..............Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
...................Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm... But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity.
.........James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.
................James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788

For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects.
................James Madison, Federalist No. 47, February 1, 1788

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.
......................James Madison, Essay on Property, March 29, 1792

If it be asked what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer, the genius of the whole system, the nature of just and constitutional laws, and above all the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America, a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
.................James Madison, Federalist No. 57, February 19, 1788

^^^^ How successful has this been?

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
..............Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

[Streck-Fu]

And some things to consider from the Anti-Federalists that distrusted a strong central government and insisted on the Bill of Rights....

"I am confident it must be, and that it is, the sincere wish of every true friend to the United States, that there should be a confederated national government, but that it should be one which would have a control over national and external matters only, and not interfere with the internal regulations and police of the different states in the union."
......An Observer, Anti-Federalist #5, 1787

"if a Continental collector, in the execution of his office, should invade your freedom (according to this new government, which has expressly declared itself paramount to all state laws and constitutions) the state of which you are a citizen will have no authority to afford you relief."
.....A Federal Republican (from Virginia, Anti-Federalist #8

^^^before creation of the Bill of Rights.

"It is beyond a doubt that the new federal constitution, if adopted, will in a great measure destroy, if it does not totally annihilate, the separate governments of the several states."
......An Old Whig, 1787

[Streck-Fu]

Back onto the original topic.....

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
of the press." Thomas Jefferson

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Streck-Fu

Spoken like a lawyer or someone trying to be a lawyer.

With all due respect, I don't think this is a good approach for you to take in a discussion about American history. Call it a hunch.

[cat in the hat]

not very. or at all.

you miss the point. the Constitution IS the law of the land. that is why many laws have been overthrown as "unconstitutional" it what every service member has sworn to uphold.

yes people have other rights not mentioned in our Constitution. (I for one believe in the right of a woman to sell her body but few places in the US are legal for such commerce.) and there are still dry counties where alcohol cannot be sold. a state constitution only grants powers to that state. for example, Medical marijuana is legal in Colorado so state law enforcement will not pursue those who use it according to state law; however, that medical marijuana card is useless in any other state. if the federal govt decided to legalize medical marijuana, states would not have to follow suit because the right to smoke pot is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

BUT free speech and many other rights including the right to bear arms are guaranteed and no city, county or state can take that away. that was the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

our Constitution has been amended many times because the founding fathers knew that it would need to be. so any amendment also becomes part of that law.

[GratefulCitizen]

The orginial 13 colonies and when they did away with state religions:

Virginia: 1830
New York: 1846
Massachusetts: 1833
Maryland: 1867
Delaware: 1792
Connecticut: 1818
New Hampshire: 1877 (effectively 1868 because of the 14th amendment)
Rhode Island: 1842
Georgia: 1798
North Carolina: 1875 (effectively 1868 because of the 14th amendment)
South Carolina: 1868
Pennsylvania: 1790
New Jersey: 1844

Ratification of the bill of rights: 1791

FWIW the first part of the 14th amendment does have some circular reasoning:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

How exactly is this determined?

What does article 1, section 8 say?
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)

What do the 9th and 10th amendments say?

Yeah, we all know the answer: it means whatever 9 people (5 people) say it means.

I beg to differ.
The Constitution means whatever the people holding the guns say it means.

That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

[hurly]

Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Searches to Protect Destruction of Evidence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/benkersc...tice-ginsburg/

I wish our rights were not subject to review and/or revision, but apparently that is wishful thinking.

[Iraqgunz]

This is the same argument that I have been making as well. If you have a court order (say child support) from one state and you live in another it is completely enforceable. The same goes with high school diplomas, divorce decrees, birth certificates, etc...

The argument that different states have different requirements really doesn't hold water to me.

In almost every single state, the requirement to obtain a firearm is the same, to include disqualifiers. The same goes for CCW/CWP. The exception being for states like California or New York that have a discretionary system which usually means very rich or connected people.

Yes, it's true that same states have a requirement to attend training and fire the weapon but it's a joke. I have permits from 3 different states and the shooting part was so easy that even a mediocre person would pass the test.

As much as I dislike the federal government sticking their noses in shit, I think that this bill is a positive. It will not creat a database, or a federal license or anything else. it simply tells the states that they must give full faith a credit to a license or permit issued by another state.

IIRC all of the stupid amendments that were offered to the bill were killed.

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

AMEN Brother.


So my question is if all states, by the law, have to recognize marrage lic, drivers lic contracts etc etc why is a CCW permit any diffrent? There is no federal probition against CCW just some laws restricting where you can posses a firearm such as federal bldg etc etc. According t the feds it is NOT illgeal tp walk down the street packing a firearm. If the states can not refuse to honor your drivers lic then how can the legally refuse to honor your CCW?

[BOfH]

Originally Posted by Oldrotorhead

I hope Mayor Bloomberg is shitting razor wire.

I doubt it. NYC will probably ignore it, just like they do FOPA. On the flip side (and as mentioned by some others on this thread), I wonder what would happen to states stand on federal law vs. states right's when certain federal funding "mysteriously" dries up...